![](https://d3ilqtpdwi981i.cloudfront.net/X7kAdCXjNYGfOKuiS4tLmcD5gmo=/425x550/smart/https://bepress-attached-resources.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/3f/37/49/3f3749de-87e5-4113-88c0-722f7a3d64b9/thumbnail_79a98685-3435-48f7-bcf5-31e440591e7f.jpg)
The mechanism responsible for retrieval-induced forgetting has been the subject of rigorous theoretical debate, with some researchers postulating that retrieval-induced forgetting can be explained by interference (J. G .W. Raaijmakers & E. Jakab, 2013) or context reinstatement (T. R. Jonker, P. Seli, & C. M. MacLeod, 2013), whereas others claim that retrieval-induced forgetting is better explained by inhibition (M. C. Anderson, 2003). A fundamental assumption of the inhibition account is that nonpracticed items are suppressed because they compete for retrieval during initial testing. In the current study, we manipulated competition in a novel interpolated testing paradigm by having subjects learn the nonpracticed items either before (high-competition condition) or after (low-competition condition) they practiced retrieval of the target items. We found retrieval-induced forgetting for the nonpracticed competitors only when they were studied before retrieval practice. This result provides support for a critical assumption of the inhibition account.
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/jason_chan/20/
This is a manuscript of an article from Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 41 (2015): 1298, doi:/10.1037/ xlm0000101. This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.